Cases for Christ's existence have been made by some but never hold up to a simple fact check as shown below. Historically speaking the absolute lack of evidence for a figure of the said time period means one of two things; the figure was very insignificant or did not exist. As it stands there is absolutely no historical evidence for the figure Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, thus there is no reason to suggest he ever existed.
The reference to Jesus in "The Passing of Peregrinus" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. The Passing of Peregrinus is also a satire, a work of fiction.
• Lucian was a satirist, not a historian
• Lucian was not born until 125 CE • Publius Cornelius Tacitus
The reference to Jesus in "Annals XV.44" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. Tacitus goes on to call this belief about Christus a "pernicious superstition."
• Tacitus was not born until 56 CE
• Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE • Suetonius
Chapter 25 of a biography titled "The Life of Claudius" has one line that mentions "Chrestus" which is NOT a reference to Jesus Christ. This passage is also set during 50 CE, twenty years after Jesus' supposed death.
• Suetonius was not...
&&
The reference to Jesus in "The Passing of Peregrinus" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. The Passing of Peregrinus is also a satire, a work of fiction.
• Lucian was a satirist, not a historian
• Lucian was not born until 125 CE • Publius Cornelius Tacitus
The reference to Jesus in "Annals XV.44" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. Tacitus goes on to call this belief about Christus a "pernicious superstition."
• Tacitus was not born until 56 CE
• Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE • Suetonius
Chapter 25 of a biography titled "The Life of Claudius" has one line that mentions "Chrestus" which is NOT a reference to Jesus Christ. This passage is also set during 50 CE, twenty years after Jesus' supposed death.
• Suetonius was not...
&&
Cases for Christ's existence have been made by some but never hold up to a simple fact check as shown below. Historically speaking the absolute lack of evidence for a figure of the said time period means one of two things; the figure was very insignificant or did not exist. As it stands there is absolutely no historical evidence for the figure Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, thus there is no reason to suggest he ever existed.
The reference to Jesus in "The Passing of Peregrinus" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. The Passing of Peregrinus is also a satire, a work of fiction.
• Lucian was a satirist, not a historian
• Lucian was not born until 125 CE • Publius Cornelius Tacitus
The reference to Jesus in "Annals XV.44" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. Tacitus goes on to call this belief about Christus a "pernicious superstition."
• Tacitus was not born until 56 CE
• Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE • Suetonius
Chapter 25 of a biography titled "The Life of Claudius" has one line that mentions "Chrestus" which is NOT a reference to Jesus Christ. This passage is also set during 50 CE, twenty years after Jesus' supposed death.
• Suetonius was not born until 41 CE
• "The Life of Claudius" was not written until 115 CE • Pliny the Younger
The reference to Jesus in Pliny the Younger's writings corresponding with the emperor Trajan is describing what Christians in Asia Minor believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true.
• Pliny the Younger was not born until 61 CE • Flavius Josephus
The Antiquities of the Jews is NOT based on historical events. Right in the preface Josephus tells us that the history he is writing about is based on Hebrew scriptures and religious books. Hence why Jesephus' Antiquities not only mentions Jesus but also describes God's creation of the earth, Adam & Eve, Noah & the flood, the Tower of Babel, the 10 Plagues, and the parting of the sea.
"Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures." "I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following." - Antiquities of the Jews -- Preface
• Josephus was not even born until 37 CE
• Antiquities of the Jews was not written until 94 CE
• Antiquities of the Jews is based on religious texts, not history.
• Josephus was an orthodox Jew and never believed in a savior named Jesus Christ • He Was Influential
Just because a figure is influential does not suggest they existed, all mythological gods were very influential. Like some Christians many followers of other gods were willing to die for what they thought was true. The terrorists of 9-11 died for the influential lie about 72 virgins in paradise. • We can't know if anyone existed that long ago
The absolute lack of historical evidence for Jesus Christ is obviously a major problem for anyone looking for a reason to think he actually existed. To ignore this problem apologists claim that we cannot expect to have any evidence for a person who lived that long ago. That claim is far from true. The 1st century was a well documented time and we have a great deal of historical evidence for figures who actually existed.
Take Julius Caesar for example. We have writings by him, and writings about him by both friends and enemies written during his life time. We have contemporary sculptures and other artwork depicting his image and various artifacts confirming his life and death. We have a known year of birth and a known day of death. We have a rather complete history of Caesar yet no such evidence is found in relation to Jesus Christ, who is said to have lived decades later. We don't even have a known last name for Jesus. • Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin is a forgery. After independent analysis by the University of Arizona, Oxford, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology all results date the shroud to be from between 1260 and 1390 CE. Besides, even if it was from the wrappings of a dead body during the 1st century this would still not be evidence that Jesus Christ existed. It would only be evidence that a person died during the 1st century. • Letters to Abgarus
The "Letters of Abgarus and Jesus" claimed by some apologists to be written by Jesus to the Abgar V are taken as forgeries, not authentic, by historians. The known copies of these letters were written long after the time Jesus supposedly lived. Also the letter forged as Jesus mirrors passages from the Diatessaron (c. 150-160 CE) and not the earlier versions of the gospels. • The Talmud
Some apologists claim that the Talmud (c. 200-500 CE) is evidence that even non-Christians claimed Jesus existed. Despite claims by Josh McDowell there is NO specific reference to Jesus anywhere in the Talmud and there is no denying that its authors didn't believe in Jesus' messiahship or divinity. • The Gospels
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and were written 36-65 years after Jesus' supposed death. None of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses, Matthew is written completely in third person (e.g. Matthew 9:9), and the author of John claims he is not the disciple John (John 21:24). The followers of Jesus were Aramaic speaking peasants from Galilee, lower class men that are not educated and could not have written the gospels in Greek. All the gospels were written anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply applied to the unnamed writings by later readers and named after characters in the stories.
Acts 4:13 even says Peter and John were uneducated and ignorant men. • Jesus Family Tomb
Some claim a tomb found in Talpiot is the tomb of Jesus and his family because two of the ten ossuaries contain the names "Jesua, son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara." Mary, Joseph, and Jesua were very common names in 1st century Israel so there is nothing significant about the inscriptions. Even most apologists agree that there is no reason to think this tomb is related to Jesus Christ particularly since it was the tomb of a wealthy family that was not from Nazareth. • Oral Tradition
Some apologists claim that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus because during that time people only shared stories verbally. It is true, there was an oral tradition among story tellers and the sharing of stories. Historians on the other hand documented events as they occurred. If Jesus was a historical figure and not just a character in a story there would be contemporary writings about him.
In the decades around 1CE it was quite common for regular humans to have followers and be worshiped as the savior predicted by scriptures. It would be no big deal if there was evidence to suggest that Jesus was an actual person with a following like many of the other alleged saviors and miracle workers. However, as described below, there are several reasons to suggest that Jesus was not an actual historic figure which would explain why there is no record of him or his supposed following.
Paul Created Jesus
It is clear from a comparison of history and Paul's writings that Jesus was not a historical figure but rather a figure of Paul's imagination. History shows us that prior to Paul there is no mentioning or awareness of Jesus and that all later stories of Jesus are derived from areas where Paul made his stories known. Paul in his writings tells us that his knowledge of Jesus is based on his interpretation of scripture and not from another person. He also tells us that no one, aside from those who gained their knowledge from scripture, knew of the events related to Jesus until he personally shared the story with the public.
» Learn More
"Historical Jesus"
Although Jesus was not originally based on a real person some later aspects were. Certain stories in the Gospels suggest that some aspects of Jesus' life were loosely inspired by legends of an actual person or persons. Historians have dubbed this person(s) "Historical Jesus" because an actual name is not known. Outside of scripture there is nothing to suggest that this person(s) existed but certain scriptural writings about Jesus, such as the resurrection story, sound more like they were based on a real life regular human being than a demi-god figure.
» Learn More
Disagreements In the Gospels
Even though the gospels were not written independently of each other they still contain various discrepancy. Many contradictions are related to simple details such as the color Jesus' robe and who or what as at his tomb. Other contradictions are more dramatic such as Luke and Matthew placing the story of Jesus' birth during two separate historical events that are 10 years apart. It is these sort of minor and dramatic discrepancies that we would not see in historical documentations of a real person and exactly what we would expect to see if the stories are just retellings of mythology and legends.
» Learn More
Christian Apologists
Apologists exist because Jesus didn't. If there actually were historical evidence for Jesus Christ then Christians would look to historians to support their claims. There would be no need for the existence of Christian apologists like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel who make up claims despite historical evidence to give people what they want to hear, not what is true. Such apologists make a great deal of money selling such books while taking advantage of their followers. To the left are rebuttals to a few dishonest claims that apologists make a living off of.
» Learn More
(more)The reference to Jesus in "The Passing of Peregrinus" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. The Passing of Peregrinus is also a satire, a work of fiction.
• Lucian was a satirist, not a historian
• Lucian was not born until 125 CE • Publius Cornelius Tacitus
The reference to Jesus in "Annals XV.44" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. Tacitus goes on to call this belief about Christus a "pernicious superstition."
• Tacitus was not born until 56 CE
• Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE • Suetonius
Chapter 25 of a biography titled "The Life of Claudius" has one line that mentions "Chrestus" which is NOT a reference to Jesus Christ. This passage is also set during 50 CE, twenty years after Jesus' supposed death.
• Suetonius was not born until 41 CE
• "The Life of Claudius" was not written until 115 CE • Pliny the Younger
The reference to Jesus in Pliny the Younger's writings corresponding with the emperor Trajan is describing what Christians in Asia Minor believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true.
• Pliny the Younger was not born until 61 CE • Flavius Josephus
The Antiquities of the Jews is NOT based on historical events. Right in the preface Josephus tells us that the history he is writing about is based on Hebrew scriptures and religious books. Hence why Jesephus' Antiquities not only mentions Jesus but also describes God's creation of the earth, Adam & Eve, Noah & the flood, the Tower of Babel, the 10 Plagues, and the parting of the sea.
"Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures." "I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following." - Antiquities of the Jews -- Preface
• Josephus was not even born until 37 CE
• Antiquities of the Jews was not written until 94 CE
• Antiquities of the Jews is based on religious texts, not history.
• Josephus was an orthodox Jew and never believed in a savior named Jesus Christ • He Was Influential
Just because a figure is influential does not suggest they existed, all mythological gods were very influential. Like some Christians many followers of other gods were willing to die for what they thought was true. The terrorists of 9-11 died for the influential lie about 72 virgins in paradise. • We can't know if anyone existed that long ago
The absolute lack of historical evidence for Jesus Christ is obviously a major problem for anyone looking for a reason to think he actually existed. To ignore this problem apologists claim that we cannot expect to have any evidence for a person who lived that long ago. That claim is far from true. The 1st century was a well documented time and we have a great deal of historical evidence for figures who actually existed.
Take Julius Caesar for example. We have writings by him, and writings about him by both friends and enemies written during his life time. We have contemporary sculptures and other artwork depicting his image and various artifacts confirming his life and death. We have a known year of birth and a known day of death. We have a rather complete history of Caesar yet no such evidence is found in relation to Jesus Christ, who is said to have lived decades later. We don't even have a known last name for Jesus. • Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin is a forgery. After independent analysis by the University of Arizona, Oxford, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology all results date the shroud to be from between 1260 and 1390 CE. Besides, even if it was from the wrappings of a dead body during the 1st century this would still not be evidence that Jesus Christ existed. It would only be evidence that a person died during the 1st century. • Letters to Abgarus
The "Letters of Abgarus and Jesus" claimed by some apologists to be written by Jesus to the Abgar V are taken as forgeries, not authentic, by historians. The known copies of these letters were written long after the time Jesus supposedly lived. Also the letter forged as Jesus mirrors passages from the Diatessaron (c. 150-160 CE) and not the earlier versions of the gospels. • The Talmud
Some apologists claim that the Talmud (c. 200-500 CE) is evidence that even non-Christians claimed Jesus existed. Despite claims by Josh McDowell there is NO specific reference to Jesus anywhere in the Talmud and there is no denying that its authors didn't believe in Jesus' messiahship or divinity. • The Gospels
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and were written 36-65 years after Jesus' supposed death. None of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses, Matthew is written completely in third person (e.g. Matthew 9:9), and the author of John claims he is not the disciple John (John 21:24). The followers of Jesus were Aramaic speaking peasants from Galilee, lower class men that are not educated and could not have written the gospels in Greek. All the gospels were written anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply applied to the unnamed writings by later readers and named after characters in the stories.
Acts 4:13 even says Peter and John were uneducated and ignorant men. • Jesus Family Tomb
Some claim a tomb found in Talpiot is the tomb of Jesus and his family because two of the ten ossuaries contain the names "Jesua, son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara." Mary, Joseph, and Jesua were very common names in 1st century Israel so there is nothing significant about the inscriptions. Even most apologists agree that there is no reason to think this tomb is related to Jesus Christ particularly since it was the tomb of a wealthy family that was not from Nazareth. • Oral Tradition
Some apologists claim that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus because during that time people only shared stories verbally. It is true, there was an oral tradition among story tellers and the sharing of stories. Historians on the other hand documented events as they occurred. If Jesus was a historical figure and not just a character in a story there would be contemporary writings about him.
In the decades around 1CE it was quite common for regular humans to have followers and be worshiped as the savior predicted by scriptures. It would be no big deal if there was evidence to suggest that Jesus was an actual person with a following like many of the other alleged saviors and miracle workers. However, as described below, there are several reasons to suggest that Jesus was not an actual historic figure which would explain why there is no record of him or his supposed following.
Paul Created Jesus
It is clear from a comparison of history and Paul's writings that Jesus was not a historical figure but rather a figure of Paul's imagination. History shows us that prior to Paul there is no mentioning or awareness of Jesus and that all later stories of Jesus are derived from areas where Paul made his stories known. Paul in his writings tells us that his knowledge of Jesus is based on his interpretation of scripture and not from another person. He also tells us that no one, aside from those who gained their knowledge from scripture, knew of the events related to Jesus until he personally shared the story with the public.
» Learn More
"Historical Jesus"
Although Jesus was not originally based on a real person some later aspects were. Certain stories in the Gospels suggest that some aspects of Jesus' life were loosely inspired by legends of an actual person or persons. Historians have dubbed this person(s) "Historical Jesus" because an actual name is not known. Outside of scripture there is nothing to suggest that this person(s) existed but certain scriptural writings about Jesus, such as the resurrection story, sound more like they were based on a real life regular human being than a demi-god figure.
» Learn More
Disagreements In the Gospels
Even though the gospels were not written independently of each other they still contain various discrepancy. Many contradictions are related to simple details such as the color Jesus' robe and who or what as at his tomb. Other contradictions are more dramatic such as Luke and Matthew placing the story of Jesus' birth during two separate historical events that are 10 years apart. It is these sort of minor and dramatic discrepancies that we would not see in historical documentations of a real person and exactly what we would expect to see if the stories are just retellings of mythology and legends.
» Learn More
Christian Apologists
Apologists exist because Jesus didn't. If there actually were historical evidence for Jesus Christ then Christians would look to historians to support their claims. There would be no need for the existence of Christian apologists like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel who make up claims despite historical evidence to give people what they want to hear, not what is true. Such apologists make a great deal of money selling such books while taking advantage of their followers. To the left are rebuttals to a few dishonest claims that apologists make a living off of.
» Learn More
but i understand your need for proof it's a natural human thing to want something to actually touch before we commit but unfortunately sometimes that just isnt the case
I'm sorry that your life is hard right now. I didn't mean to attack you at all, and I'm really sorry if that's how it came across. I also have no intention of attacking your beliefs in any way. I was trying to engage in debate about our differences in opinion, but that is much less important than your well-being as a person.
Really, I wish the best for you, and I really am sorry if I hurt you.
Soojin
thank you i appreciate your compassion
The Bible calls faith "the proof of things not seen"; but it's wrong. It isn't proof of anything. It's just the individual, making the choice to believe, based on no evidence. And there is nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong, is when a person chooses to believe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.Now we're getting into denial issues.
You believe as you see fit, but I would implore you: keep questioning. Follow those doubts, and see if you don't find yourself more satisfied with your natural skepticism, than with your forced faith.
Eventually, I reached a point in which I realized that fear of repurcussions is not a reason to believe something. If you believe that "Rocky" is the best movie ever, and someone threatens to hit you in the face, if you don't say that "The Godfather" is the best movie ever, you might say it in order to avoid the consequences; but your opinion won't actually change.
The same is true of religion. I told myself for years that I believed. I tried to convince myself, even when I couldn't possibly explain why. But at some point, my integrity got the better of me, and I realized that the ONLY reason to believe ANYTHING; is that it is the most reasonable thing to believe, based upon all of the information and evidence that I've been able to access. That's when I gave up the proverbial ghost.
so you see even if theyre just my own i have to believe in something
but i wish you good fortune in all your future endeavors you are a smart person and these days thats becoming much more rare
you do not feel the need to attack and i cant tell you how much i appreciate that :)
Also, while you may give God credit for pulling you out of the proverbial gutter, you did that yourself. You may have drawn inspiration from the Bible, but you are far stronger than you know. When I was in Iraq, I drew inspiration from the book "Candide" by Voltaire. Neither the author, nor his main character knew what I was going through, but they inspired me. Still, despite the external inspiration, the strength to survive, was my own.
Be proud of who you are; the faith, the doubt, all of it.
thank you for all your advice elijahn